Missouri Revised Statutes
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 511.340 (2026)
Performance of judgment, enforcement
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
511.340. Performance of judgment, enforcement. — When a judgment requires the performance of any other act than the payment of money, a certified copy of the judgment may be served upon the party against whom it is given, and his obedience thereto required. If he neglect or refuse, he may be punished by the court as for a contempt, by fine or imprisonment, or both, and, if necessary, by sequestration of property.
--------
(RSMo 1939 § 1268)
Prior revisions: 1929 § 1102; 1919 § 1553; 1909 § 2122
(1976) Where circuit court reversed and held for naught the impeachment proceedings of city removing the city marshal, the city could not be held in contempt for failure to take affirmative action such as paying the marshal's salary and emoluments due during the period of suspension where these acts were not required specifically in the original judgment. State ex rel. City of Pacific v. Buford (A.), 534 S.W.2d 819.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1954–2018 · leading case: In Re Est. of Downs, 300 S.W.3d 242 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
In Re Est. of Downs, 300 S.W.3d 242 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). “Pursuant to section 511.340, the trial court can punish civil contempt by fine or imprisonment: When a judgment requires the performance of any other act than the payment of money, a certified copy of the judgment may be served upon the party against whom it is given, and his…”
Yeager v. Yeager, 622 S.W.2d 339 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). “Husband filed a motion to dismiss Count I and on February 13, 1981, the trial court contrary to its previous contempt ruling sustained husband’s motion to dismiss for the reason that “said relief requested is prohibited by Article I, Section 11 of the Missouri Constitution of…”
Lyons v. Sloop, 40 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). “In setting forth the standards for commitment, the Court stated: Although a person normally may not be imprisoned for contempt of an order directing payment of money, § 511.340 RSMo 1986, a person may be incarcerated for failure to comply with an order prescribing maintenance…”
State ex rel. City of Pac. v. Buford, 534 S.W.2d 819 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). “Section 511.340, RSMo 1969, provides for contempt as a mode of enforcing judgments with the specific exception in those cases of judgments for “the payment of money.”
Int'l Motor Co. v. Boghosian Motor Co., 870 S.W.2d 843 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). “…petition. . Furthermore, if the original judgment had been a money judgment, contempt would not lie to enforce it. Section 511.340 RSMo 1986.”
Est. of Laura Downs v. Bugg, 347 S.W.3d 487 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). “This court found that pursuant to section 511.340, RSMo 2000, a court cannot hold a person in contempt for failing to comply with a judgment requiring the payment of money because imprisonment for failure to obey a judgment to pay money violates the Missouri Constitution.”
Redifer v. Redifer, 650 S.W.2d 26 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). “33 and § 511.340, RSMo. 1978, by serving a certified copy of the dissolution decree on her before he filed his contempt motion.”
Smith v. Capital Region Med. Ctr., 564 S.W.3d 800 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). “Consistently, section 511.340 provides: When a judgment requires the performance of any other act than the payment of money , a certified copy of the judgment may be served upon the party against whom it is given, and his obedience thereto required.”
Dothage v. Dothage, 727 S.W.2d 925 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). “Section 511.340, RSMo.1986, grants the courts power to punish by contempt for the failure of a party to perform an act required by a judgment, but only if the performance be of an act other than the payment of money.”
21 West, Inc. v. Meadowgreen Trails, Inc., 913 S.W.2d 858 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). “The contempt action was not an attempt to enforce a money judgment and therefore barred by RSMo § 511.340; the action for contempt was intended to force Green Valley to perform its obligations under the December 13 contract and close on the Lilac Ridge lots.”
Hoog v. Hoog, 545 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). “1973); § 511.340, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.; Supreme Court Rule 74.”
Swan v. Shelton, 469 S.W.2d 943 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971). “The various modification orders were not tantamount to the judgment of revival provided for in Section 511.340. Plaintiff’s final point is that the payments made by defendant to plaintiff during the year “revived and vitalized” the original decree.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.